Tuttle v. White

• Decision Date: 01 July 1881
• Citation: 9 N.W. 528,46 Mich. 485
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: TUTTLE v. WHITE and another.

9 N.W. 528

46 Mich. 485

TUTTLE v. WHITE and another.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 1, 1881

Where logs cut by a trespasser are purchased and taken possession of, by one in good faith, the measure of damages in an action of trover against such purchaser, by the owner of the land from which they were cut, is the value of such logs at the time and place of purchase and assuming control.

Error to Kent.

C.G. &amp W.W. Hyde, for plaintiff in error.

J.C Fitzgerald, for defendants in error.

MARSTON, C.J.

The action in this case was trover. The defendants purchased the logs in question from Sheridan & Hamilton, who cut them upon plaintiff's lands, and who were unquestionably trespassers in so doing. They, Sheridan & Hamilton, made no claim or pretence of having cut the logs under circumstances tending even to show good faith on their part. Sheridan &amp Hamilton sold the logs to defendants, afloat in Black creek. It was claimed, and we shall so assume, that defendants in making the purchase acted in entire good faith; they afterwards run the logs into Flat river and there sold them at an advanced price. The material question relates to the rule laid down as to the proper measure of damages, The court charged the jury in substance, that if the defendants in purchasing these logs acted in good faith, the rule would be either the value of the logs where they were cut on the ground, with the addition of any profit there might be in handling them and bringing them to Flat river, or the value at Flat river deducting the cost of bringing them there.

We are of opinion that the facts in this case did not warrant the charge as thus given. These defendants purchased from trespassers, and if they acted in good faith in so doing, all they could ask would be protection in what they should expend in money or labor thereon thereafter. A person however in purchasing personal property runs his risk as to the title he is acquiring, and if he is unfortunate enough to purchase from a trespasser or one who has no title and can give none, he must suffer the loss or look to his vendor. To hold otherwise would be to give the trespassers the benefit of their own wrong, contrary to all the authorities. If these defendants had only made a partial payment for the logs under their contract of purchase, and the plaintiff herein was limited in his recovery to the value of the logs when first severed from the land, then defendants would be...